WI 2nd Korean War in 1994

Timmy811 · Oct 15, 2005

What if negotations broke down over the Korean nuclear program in 1994 and war broke out on the Korean pnninsula. After an extremely bloody conflict, in which America loses thousands of soldiers killed in action, Korea is reunited under the ROK. (Assume China didn't intervene)

How does this effect US domestic politics? Do republicans still win in a landslide in November. How would the public perception of Clinton change? Will the second large war in five years bring home to congress that the post cold war world will be see more conflict not last and cause them to stop the cuts in the Army at 14 divisions, and perhaps re-expand it to 18 putting an end to the "peace dividend". How does Europe react?

Scomerger · Oct 15, 2005

Result? Third divisive war since the Vietnam War and the Civil War. Basicially a second 'Vietnam War' if you get my drift. Literally.

Wendell · Oct 15, 2005

No wider war? Frankly, this won't happen under Clinton unless he can make himself look good.

Nicole · Oct 15, 2005

Well, assuming the war goes quickly enough (probably will if the Chinese stay out, the DPRK was already teetering by then), though we seen Korean partisans, I think that the Republicans will probably do worse, because the Democrats have gotten rid of a major enemy, and those Republicans are unpatriotic anyway

p )
But the North Koreans have swallowed years of heavy propaganda, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw many heavily determined Partisans...
Definately the idea of a Peace Dividend goes flying out the window.

Wendell · Oct 15, 2005

Imajin said:
Well, assuming the war goes quickly enough (probably will if the Chinese stay out, the DPRK was already teetering by then), though we seen Korean partisans, I think that the Republicans will probably do worse, because the Democrats have gotten rid of a major enemy, and those Republicans are unpatriotic anyway p )
But the North Koreans have swallowed years of heavy propaganda, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw many heavily determined Partisans...
Definately the idea of a Peace Dividend goes flying out the window.

Although, if Wesley Clark has anything to do with this war, then there is no way for the PRC to stay out

Timmy811 · Oct 15, 2005

Shimernaru Dojo said:
Result? Third divisive war since the Vietnam War and the Civil War. Basicially a second 'Vietnam War' if you get my drift. Literally.

Why? Though extremly bloody with maybe up to 10-12,000 American KIA and tens of thousands of South Korean military dead, with who knows how many civilian deaths, it would only last a few months, this is the kind of large conventional war the US military excells at. Furthermore the presence of the large ROK army means no drawn out occupation for the US army.

It may hurt Clinton in the '94 congressional elections, especially if the war broke out in October when negotiations were most intense in OTL. The first month wouldn't go well for US and ROK forces, but the Democrats could hardly have done much worse then they did in real life. However the war would be over in our favor by Memorial Day '95. That victory, as well as the inevitible overreach by House Republicans under Newt would give Clinton a good chance at winning re-election as much as I (a republican) would wish otherwise.

Wendell · Oct 15, 2005

It would be ironic to impeach Clinton in his first term over a "Korean bloodbath."

Nicole · Oct 15, 2005

Wendell said:
It would be ironic to impeach Clinton in his first term over a "Korean bloodbath."

Probably unlikely, though. After all, the Republicans have long cultivated an image as "the Party of National Defense", and they probably won't sacrifice that for the chance of getting Al Gore in the Oval Office rather than Bill Clinton... The Republican campaigns will most likely focus on failures of the Clinton Administration during the war.

Timmy811 · Oct 16, 2005

Wendell said:
It would be ironic to impeach Clinton in his first term over a "Korean bloodbath."

On what grounds would he be impeached. Ordering an attack on Korean nuclear facilities is within his power. I just don't see that happening at all. People would be a rally around the flag.

Scomerger · Oct 16, 2005

Timmy811 said:
Why? Though extremly bloody with maybe up to 10-12,000 American KIA and tens of thousands of South Korean military dead, with who knows how many civilian deaths, it would only last a few months, this is the kind of large conventional war the US military excells at. Furthermore the presence of the large ROK army means no drawn out occupation for the US army.

It may hurt Clinton in the '94 congressional elections, especially if the war broke out in October when negotiations were most intense in OTL. The first month wouldn't go well for US and ROK forces, but the Democrats could hardly have done much worse then they did in real life. However the war would be over in our favor by Memorial Day '95. That victory, as well as the inevitible overreach by House Republicans under Newt would give Clinton a good chance at winning re-election as much as I (a republican) would wish otherwise.

The 'First Korean War' lasted for three years, so why would the second one last for a few months? Sure, the Soviet Union may not be there to provide assistance to the Communists in North Korea (Did the Soviet Union provide aid to North Korea in the Korean War of 1950-53? I do not know...) but shouldn't North Korea have more powerful troops, military equipment (Like arms, tanks, etc...) that would stretch the war a bit (or lot, if you call it) longer?

Timmy811 · Oct 16, 2005

The North Koreans, despite overruning almost the entire peninsula were crushed and on the verge of total defeat within four months. Only the intervention of hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers prolonged the war and turned it into a stalemate. I think the Chinese leadership since Mao has been much cautious and would not intervene. Secondly the equipment (especially armor and airpower) of the US and ROK forces are much superior to that of the North Koreans, their advantage being only in heavy artillery and numbers (nearly 2-1 advantage).

Dave Howery · Oct 16, 2005

wouldn't the reaction of the world depend a lot on who attacks first? If the US does (something I see as unlikely), then there is going to be a lot of 'why didn't they continue the negotiations', rather as with Iraq now. If the NKs attack first (something all too likely), then they'll pretty much lose any sympathy abroad. If the NK's use any WMDs, then the world would be cheering the US/SK on....

Mark · Oct 16, 2005

Even in 1994, the PRC would probably have offered token support to the PDRK at best. China wouldn't risk loosing its trade with the ROK, much less the US. Also, the ROK armed forces are a bit better in the 1990s than they were in the early 1950s. And the next time, the ROK isn't going to stop until Korea is united.

DocOrlando · Oct 16, 2005

I would add that as soon as US forces entered the theater, DPRK would attempt to escalate the conflict. I think it's likely that you'd see missile launches against Japan...sort of akin to Iraq launching Scuds against Israel during Desert Storm.

The terrain of Korea doesn't lend itself to the same swift movement allowed in the Iraqi deserts. The war would also demand regime change in Pyongyang as the absolute goal; there could be no Desert Storm-style "repulse the invaders and then withdraw." That's where the slog begins.

Kim il-Jong would almost certainly pull a Saddam and go into hiding. (Kim il-Sung died in '94, so depending on when this all went down, he's either alive (and hiding) or dead (and...uh...dead).) Despite the brainwashing of generations, I wouldn't be surprised if there are mass defections/surrenders by DPRK troops once ROK/US troops begin to push back. This is a nation held hostage for nearly 50 years; families want to reunite, and North Koreans just want a real meal. That's big motivation.

Things could go really wild and China could declare a laissez-faire policy. How nice would it be for them to stop propping up those kooky Kims? Their trade situation would only stand to improve with a happy, united ROK at their border; certainly the governments of the US and ROK would remember Chinese assistance (or at least Chinese apathy).

basileus · Oct 17, 2005

The war would likely be short (a few weeks, two months in the worst case) and extremely brutal, with hundreds of thousands of civilians massacred by either NK tropps or US bombing raids. As for the subsequent ressistance -provided it would be effective, which I highly doubt, it would be a purely Korean inner problem; the US would have won the war, now the South Koreans would have to win the peace. Any comparison between Korea and Vietnam is a mistake. In Vietnam there was a strong bent towards national reunification and chasing of any external influence, which wasn't the case in Korea, despite recurrent pro-PRK rallying among the South Korean left. Most of allif North Vietnam wasn't such a great economy, in 1994 pople in North Korea simply died from hunger. OK, even Soviet Union in the Forties had people dying from hunger and won a huge war: but it had 1) an immense extensioin who stopped the German war machine and 2) Allied aid. North Korea would get nothing. In Vietnam the US couldn't invade the North, were the rebls had base and whose army regularly and plainly invaded the South; if they did, WWIII and the Armageddon would have become realities. North Korea had no allies as of 1994, nor it really has today, not even China. No onme would feel pity for its disapperance from the maps, and teh subsequent Nuremberg-like trials would make a good comparison between the kwan-li-so system and the Nazi Vernichtungslager and the Stalinist Gulag.

Timmy811 · Oct 17, 2005

basileus said:
The war would likely be short (a few weeks, two months in the worst case) and extremely brutal, with hundreds of thousands of civilians massacred by either NK tropps or US bombing raids.

While a hundred thousand civilians could die, the agent of their death would be North Korean artillery shelling Souel, not US bombing or North Korean death squads.

csa945 · Oct 18, 2005

Shimernaru Dojo said:
The 'First Korean War' lasted for three years, so why would the second one last for a few months? Sure, the Soviet Union may not be there to provide assistance to the Communists in North Korea (Did the Soviet Union provide aid to North Korea in the Korean War of 1950-53? I do not know...)

The People's Republic provided more aid in terms of manpower. They entered the war after MacArthur got too close to the Yalu River and drove the UN forces all the way back to where they are now. The PRC would not be nearly as likely to aid the DPRK today. If anything, they'd side with the US, as would Russia, if either state entered the war at all.

Shimernaru Dojo said:
but shouldn't North Korea have more powerful troops, military equipment (Like arms, tanks, etc...) that would stretch the war a bit (or lot, if you call it) longer?

Not by comparison. In the 50's, the commies actually had more advanced weaponry than the US -- AK-47s and MiGs. I don't believe that the US had jet fighters at the time and they most certainly did not have an automatic rifle -- or at least not one worth mentioning. The M-14 sucked! It was only accurate on the first shotand the US Army brass opposed the idea of an automatic rifle in the first place as it broke with the US tradition of "one shot -- one kill." Now (and in 1994) the US has the most advanced military in the world, and the military of the DPRK is woefully out of date. Most of their equipment is about 30 years old (so 20 years in '94).

The US would win the war handily in a few months. As for the occupation, there would probably be a wider global acceptance of the war, not to mention the willingness of the ROK to simply absorb the DPRK, and not as many foreign terrorists able to make their way into the occupied territory -- so the occupation would probably be more like that of Kosovo than Iraq.

Problems -- if Wes Clark is around (was he already in office by then?) he'd probably try to start WWIII with China instead of Russia.

Seriously, though, China may look to reclaim Taiwan if the US is tied down in Korea.

Timmy811 · Oct 18, 2005

csa945 said:
The People's Republic provided more aid in terms of manpower. They entered the war after MacArthur got too close to the Yalu River and drove the UN forces all the way back to where they are now. The PRC would not be nearly as likely to aid the DPRK today. If anything, they'd side with the US, as would Russia, if either state entered the war at all.

Not by comparison. In the 50's, the commies actually had more advanced weaponry than the US -- AK-47s and MiGs. I don't believe that the US had jet fighters at the time and they most certainly did not have an automatic rifle -- or at least not one worth mentioning. The M-14 sucked! It was only accurate on the first shotand the US Army brass opposed the idea of an automatic rifle in the first place as it broke with the US tradition of "one shot -- one kill." Now (and in 1994) the US has the most advanced military in the world, and the military of the DPRK is woefully out of date. Most of their equipment is about 30 years old (so 20 years in '94).

The F-86 Sabre turned the tide of the Air war in our favor. Also the M-14 wasn't introduced until 1957, troops in Korea used the M-1 Garand like in WWII

Mark · Oct 18, 2005

csa945 said:
Now (and in 1994) the US has the most advanced military in the world, and the military of the DPRK is woefully out of date. Most of their equipment is about 30 years old (so 20 years in '94).

During the mid-1990s, Russia repaid some of their debt to one of the South Korean companies by supplying them with a bunch of tanks for them to scrap for the metal. At least one of the tanks made its way to the ROK army, because it was essentially the same model the DPRK army was using.

csa945 said:
The US would win the war handily in a few months. As for the occupation, there would probably be a wider global acceptance of the war, not to mention the willingness of the ROK to simply absorb the DPRK, and not as many foreign terrorists able to make their way into the occupied territory -- so the occupation would probably be more like that of Kosovo than Iraq.

One day I passed a train with several ROK tanks onboard. They looked at lot like the US' Abrams tank, except it was much smaller. The US troops I talked with that night knew the tanks and thought they were "cute" compared to the power of the Abrams. I then asked which would do better in the mountains, and they all stopped laughing. Not being stupid, the South Koreans had taken the ideas and adapted them to their mountainous country. So, if that's what they do with things they park in major train stations, what are they hiding? The point being, the ROK will be winning the war with US help, not the other way around.

Also, Koreans do not think there are two countries on their peninsula. They are just having an extended argument about their form of government. Therefore, they won't be absorbing the DPRK, they will be re-unifying the country.

Dave Howery · Oct 19, 2005

well, the Korean tanks would do fine in the east half of the country, which is all mountains, but the US tanks would do better in the west half, which is flat... and which is where a lot of the action will take place. Of course the Koreans will be winning the war with us helping... there are hundreds of thousands of them and only thousands of US troops. The koreans could probably win on their own now, as the qualitative differences between the two koreas is pretty severe....